Could the South have won the war? If so, how?

I agree with Viper21. The Davis was a little to over zealous in the beginning. The first shot should not have been taken by the South. The North should have been made out to be the aggressor and public opinion would have been swayed in favor of the South. Especially abroad.

Agree although the impact might have been even greater inside the US, especially in the north as the opposition to Lincoln's decision not to let the states go would have been larger if the north had fired the 1st shots.

IIRC someone mentioned that the south offered to purchase Ft Sumpter and other such military outposts in their territory. Lincoln rejected that but was it a public offer and if not would it have made a difference if they had made it public?
 
Lincoln was more than willing to play politics a little longer. He could abandon Norfolk, fortify Harper's Ferry, let Congress argue about compromises, admit Kansas and discuss a co-operation treaty on the slave trade with Britain.
With just the 7 cotton states having seceded, the Republicans were ready and enthusiastic about the legislative situation.
Without the false crisis created by the secessionists, more people in the middle eight states are going to figure out secession is a bad move, and not the way to protect slavery.
 
I agree with Viper21. The Davis was a little to over zealous in the beginning. The first shot should not have been taken by the South. The North should have been made out to be the aggressor and public opinion would have been swayed in favor of the South. Especially abroad.
Well it was still possible for them to win between 1861 until 1863. About you mentioning about the North firing the first shots and not the South there was the 1849-1850 pre-Compromise of 1850 period if you have read America's Great Debate, On the Brink of Civil War, Prologue to Conflict you would know that Texas planned on sending Ranger militia led by Robert S. Neighbors to enforce its claims on portions of New Mexico and were prepared to fight the U.S. military garrison under Colonel John Munroe the simplest way to do it is to have Henry Clay die of tuberculosis much earlier like say January 1850considering he had suffered from bad health and was only two years from his death in 1852 in OTL which means no Compromise of 1850 proposed. Contemporaries such as Alexander Stephens, Henry S. Foote, and Henry Clay himself warned that if Texas militia and United States troops in New Mexico ever got into a fight with each other then the other Southern states (including border states like Kentucky and Missouri) would join in and assist effectively leading to secession. That is the ideal way for this of what you happened can occur.
 
The 16 contiguous paid labor states, with the youth of their population already established in the Midwest, with the railroad network and shipping on the Great Lakes, could have gone on to nationhood just as they were. The labor system was consistent with that of western Europe and their economy was attractive to British investors. No fundamental change was required. They could have won by not fighting for 20 years.
After 8 months the United States had control over most of Missouri, as well as western Virginia, and Maryland, with Delaware. So after that elapse of time, they had a solid 18 state entity, with Oregon and California still attached. The United States could look forward to statehood for Nebraska, and potential statehood for western Virginia.
After 13 months the United States possessed most of the urban centers of the potential Confederacy. By that time the United States had deployed naval squadrons at each of the three naval theaters.
By the end of 1863 the United States had control of the Mississippi.
At what point did the Confederacy demonstrate the ability to outlast the United States?
If the Confederacy had defeated President Lincoln and the Republicans, the Midwestern states were never going to yield control of the Mississippi.
 
The 16 contiguous paid labor states, with the youth of their population already established in the Midwest, with the railroad network and shipping on the Great Lakes, could have gone on to nationhood just as they were. The labor system was consistent with that of western Europe and their economy was attractive to British investors. No fundamental change was required. They could have won by not fighting for 20 years.
After 8 months the United States had control over most of Missouri, as well as western Virginia, and Maryland, with Delaware. So after that elapse of time, they had a solid 18 state entity, with Oregon and California still attached. The United States could look forward to statehood for Nebraska, and potential statehood for western Virginia.
After 13 months the United States possessed most of the urban centers of the potential Confederacy. By that time the United States had deployed naval squadrons at each of the three naval theaters.
By the end of 1863 the United States had control of the Mississippi.
At what point did the Confederacy demonstrate the ability to outlast the United States?
If the Confederacy had defeated President Lincoln and the Republicans, the Midwestern states were never going to yield control of the Mississippi.
Not in certain periods in 1861-1862 and to an extent early 1863 of what you claim. And besides the situations of each border state were entirely different 2 of them (Maryland and Delaware) were not in danger of secession due to slavery declining with the latter close to abolishing entirely, WV only because of proximity to Ohio and George B. McClellan's leadership, Kentucky because of a rather blunderous move by Leonidas Polk and even that state would be for a while in 1862 have Confederate authority caused by 2 victories coupled with the capture of Lexington and the state capital of Frankfort, and Missouri while having bit of coercion by Nathaniel Lyon that however wold later be countered a bit by Sterling Price's Missouri Guard who would win at Wilson's Creek before going on to win a string of victories that carried them as far as Lexington (MO) and to paraphrase the book Pathfinder and Abraham Lincoln: A Life about half the state fell to the Rebels and the letter produced by Abraham Lincoln's secretary John G. Hay about the situation in the West in October 1861 was nothing what you described. Let me tell you this: I wonder about the United States of 1776-1783 did it really harm the United Kingdom even after losing a bit of their colonies? Short answer no and there were times in which the American Patriots could have been defeated by the British easily.
 
I have been reading through and haven't seen this thought brought up and am curious what peoples opinions are on this option.

In the immediate aftermath of the first shots being fired, many in the North were not thinking the Civil war would turn into anything as devastating as what it became. From what I have read, many figured they'd put together their army, take back their bases and federal properties, most everyone would fall back in line and they'd run down that tiny minority of actual secessionists and things would go back to normal. The thought was this would be smaller than the Revolutionary war, which had 30 times fewer casualties than where the Civil War ended up.

The question is a two parter.

A. would the US still have engaged in the Civil war if the South had been able to show how unified they were for the Confederacy?

B. Could the South have better shown that unity in their desire to fight on a massive scale in a believable way?
 
A. would the US still have engaged in the Civil war if the South had been able to show how unified they were for the Confederacy?

The North was in a rage militare` so I do not think it matters.​

B. Could the South have better shown that unity in their desire to fight on a massive scale in a believable way?[/QUOTE]
I think they did.​
 
The North was in a rage militare` so I do not think it matters.​

B. Could the South have better shown that unity in their desire to fight on a massive scale in a believable way?
I think they did.​
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure they did. When you look at the letters and initial actions, those weren't for a major war. And then once it was a major war Lincoln hoped his 10% plan would break the war-weary south in 1863. Time and again they underestimated how much the South put behind supporting that war.

And I don't think it would have changed Lincoln's mind to be honest. But would it have changed enough in the North to get a vote in Congress before it was big enough where the loss of life hardened them to anything other than surrender by the south?
 
The person who has frequently commented this thread as well as two others he created himself is repeating the same tripe (no offense to him, some criticism) over and over and over again.

He is not interested in looking at the further details of what happened in 1861-1862 in specific periods in Bull Run July 1861 to post-Trent Affair January 1862, Seven Days Summer 1862 to early-mid September fall pre-Antietam 1862, and post-Fredericksburg December 1862-Mud March early 1863 and dismisses those who witnessed it (even soldiers themselves) as not having an understanding of modern war when in fact unlike him they lived to see it and knew precisely what was going on contrary to what he claims.
 
I think there was a small but real chance that after the first battle of Bull Run/Manassas when Washingon DC was basically unguarded a Confederate invasion of the Capital possibly could have captured the sixteenth president. Without Lincoln, the possibility for missteps like engaging in a war over the Trent affair would be more likely. That certainly would not guarantee a Confederate victory or a negotiated peace but the chances would be higher. Lincoln was well aware of his vulnerability. He probably would have just fled the city and directed the was from another place. But it is one possible answer.
 
I think there was a small but real chance that after the first battle of Bull Run/Manassas when Washingon DC was basically unguarded a Confederate invasion of the Capital possibly could have captured the sixteenth president. Without Lincoln, the possibility for missteps like engaging in a war over the Trent affair would be more likely. That certainly would not guarantee a Confederate victory or a negotiated peace but the chances would be higher. Lincoln was well aware of his vulnerability. He probably would have just fled the city and directed the was from another place. But it is one possible answer.
As good as an option this may be the biggest problem lies in that the Confederate Army was not sufficiently organized enough to advance to Washington unless there was some better organizing on the Confederates' part.

Like you pointed out Washington being captured by the Confederates would not automatically end the war or a negotiated peace but it would raise chances higher. Lincoln would have probably relocated the capital to Philadelphia (for historical purposes) and establish a new government there.
 
By the time these numbers were published in 1864 they were obsolete. When the Midwest states did educational surveys in 1865 they found out that their populations were larger, and growing faster than anticipated.
 
Although census estimated immigration at about 91,000 with about 31,000 military age men included, later work showed immigration had risen to about 176,000 which would have included about 55,000 military age men. Almost all those men would have arrived at destinations in the Midwest, and were available to work, if not to fight.
 
In addition, the US Midwest armies could support their logistical workforce, and their regiments with black southerners. I do not know of any significant northern population that became available to the Confederacy.
 
In addition, white males in Tennessee were deeply divided as to whether fighting for the Confederacy was prudent. @leftyhunter would have the exact numbers available on this division.
 
Finally, the most advanced weapon system in the interior of the Confederacy during the Civil War were gunboats. They could attack both river and land opponents. These weapons were made in mutually supporting numbers in St. Louis, MO and Louisville, KY. They could have been made in New Orleans, LA. But fortunately for the US, that city came under US control by May 1862.
 
In addition, white males in Tennessee were deeply divided as to whether fighting for the Confederacy was prudent. @leftyhunter would have the exact numbers available on this division.
Per " Lincoln's Loyalists Union Soldiers from the South" Richard Current North East University Press 42k Unionist troops from Tennessee. The above figure does not include Unionist Home Guards and guerrillas.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top